The ignostic challenge is that God has no meaning and substance.He is purportedly the ultimate explanation,a personal one according to Richard Swinburne, but is only a mystery, surrounded by other mysteries, only obscuring rather than explaining! God” hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf” states atheologian Keith Parsons and furthermore,“Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an unscrutable manner for unknown purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good answer.”
God did it does not add any information but begs the question as theists are so wont to do.God wills what He wills is a mere unimformative tautology.
Theists have the mere feeling that behind the universe is a caring, supreme mind.This mere feeling shows itself then in pareidolia as the man in the moon , only seeing purpose in a purposeless world.Contrary to Eugenie Scott, George Gaylord Nelson, does not make a philosophical statement in saying such but a scientifIC one.
The Ockham is Ockham’s Razor which says that one should only use theories that do not have excess bagage as the theistic one so does.Natural causes and explanations are self-explanatory, but God requires ad hoc explanantions and is parasitic upon science.Contrary to the shallow Alister McGrath, this redundancy does not add anything to anything.
So, contrary to the shallow Richard Swinburne, God is not a good personal explanation. He no mores add anything to explanations than Thor does to meteorological ones , gremlins adding to mechanical explanations, demons to psychological ones or angels to the laws of mechanics to explain the orbits of the planets!
Deist Miklos Jakon in “Confronting Believers” maintains:“I do not understand why atheists accuse me of just guessing about God. Of course I’m guessing! I’m making my best guess. This is theology we are engaged in., here, not science.” Indeed! Theology is a series of guesses about a supreme mystery,surrounded by other mysteries, putatively as the ultimate explanation but in in reality, only the ultimate obscurity!

The Ockham challenge underlies the criticism of theistic evolution which I critique in a thread.
Michael Martin in “Atheism: a Philosophical Critique” and Nicholas Everitt in “The Non-Existence of God,” demonstrate the incoherence of God.
Miklos Jako, deist, in “Confronting Believers.” states that as God makes logic, one cannot use logic against Him.” Martin claims that God is defined as spoirit, therefore He has no body, and threrefore cannot know what it’s like to be a human, and therefore canot be omniscient, and therefore God is a contradictory concept which cannot exist in relaity,” he paraphrases Martin.
Jako’s logic is an example of ad hoc reasoning which theists do to make sense of God.However, he is rare in that theologians posit that logic circumscribes Him: he cannot do the logicall impossible. So, then God could make a stone so heavy He couln’t lift it!
More anon.

The Ockham challenge underlies the criticism of theistic evolution which I critique in a thread.
Michael Martin in “Atheism: a Philosophical Critique” and Nicholas Everitt in “The Non-Existence of God,” demonstrate the incoherence of God.
Miklos Jako, deist, in “Confronting Believers.” states that as God makes logic, one cannot use logic against Him.” Martin claims that God is defined as spoirit, therefore He has no body, and threrefore cannot know what it’s like to be a human, and therefore canot be omniscient, and therefore God is a contradictory concept which cannot exist in relaity,” he paraphrases Martin.
Jako’s logic is an example of ad hoc reasoning which theists do to make sense of God.However, he is rare in that theologians posit that logic circumscribes Him: he cannot do the logicall impossible. So, then God could make a stone so heavy He couln’t lift it!
More anon.